We will solve all with the dictatorship, comrade

I am sorry, this comment went in the different direction. Is there not a dogmatic critique of the cult of x? Stalin’s successor was famously speech about the corrupting power of the individual. This was sharply rebuked by PRC as being revisionist. The interpretation of “orthodox Marxism” and revisions to ML. Cheeky. Would the USSR of the past not critique the PRC of today for its trade with the US or EU and lead to a soviet-sino split?

I lack the understanding of the mechanisms of PRC, USSR. I expect that they are at grass root very community driven. I also expect that dogmatic leadership can be a real problem, and my usual scared in enabling a ML which usually advocates for the vanguard, may turn into the board of public safety. The mechanism of recall or public shaming do little to remove the power of the threat of violence.

How will the corrupt be prevented from centralising the power and going against the interest of the common. In PRC we have seen purges of corruption, mayors hoarding bribed gold, billionaires exist, and Xi says they will achieve socialism beyond 2050. What trust can I put in the dogmatic to deliver a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Am I choosing between the shiniest of two turds? We do it because we must, but do I replace one master with another?

An interesting idea. Is someone more or less of the marxist if they are the marxist-leninist or are they less the Marxist than someone who says they are just Marxist?

Is a marxist-lenist-stalinist-maoist-thenextsomeone less of a Marxist than a marxist-lenist? How much of the principles and the heories are diluted or revised or pure? Is the Stalinist a revisionist, is it a revision if its a condition of the current needs and pragmatism? Does denouncing of crimes constitute revision? If someone calls themself a Stalinist and someone points to the secret speech as evidence of crimes, who is then the reactionary for the next comment?

Is the only “pure” Marxist then Marx at the exact moment of the death. Himself will have ‘adjusted’ the positions (revised?) as time goes towards.

sigh opens map game.

Where do you think Engels would place them on his “stages of barbarism”? The “lower stage of barbarism” he gave to the Iroquois Confederacy and I would be interested in the assessment of the working family of cavelivers.

The people need to take high humidity more seriously. The difference between low and high humidity while sit in the shade with the fan and the lack of clothing can be a hot summer’s day and certain death.

If the 8 sided shape looked more like the “symbol of chaos” with the 8 arrows then it might work better as the flag

What has helped me with my imagination is the idea of the abolishment of money and private (not personal) property. In any society without those two things the burden of being is just not there.

In most societies the pressure that you must work for the sake of working because you must have money makes people desperate. If you do not work you do not get money and then you starve and you are homeless. I ask people “imagine if money is no longer issue. What would you do…” then they see the world through different eyes.

Your question on trust and law today is with that punishing system of work and money and capital. Remove that burden and you remove a lot of those challenges. You begin to no longer judge crimes of need, you begin to mediate conflict of interests.

It is a long path. It is not easy and is against the nature of everything around you. That is why it is revolutionary.

The swoletariat stronk.

The infrastructure is a good topic. I would like to see the roads repaired and holes filled. The barrier added to protect people from dangerous situations or to slow cars in front of the school or the children care.

Today it is not efficient and these things never get done. Maybe the state cannot “afford” or does not has “the capacity” or “the right” or it is “private”.

If you try to take these actions with the agreement of your community and do it with the collective people and tools then it does not matter. The state will come to your home and punish you and your community and the state will destroy your improvements. If you resist this oppresion then they will use violence against you and your community because that is what must be done.

The people know what the problems be, the people want to fix them and they know how to fix them. The state and the ministry and the offices and the officials and the laws and the small power that is held over others prevent you from fixing them with the threat of violence.

Say you can’t process information without saying you can’t process information. Why would a ‘leftist’ read that and throw away an opportunity foe a decentralized network of communities not owned by the rich owning class?

South Indian food is quite spicy. Most typically the Indian food you find in different place is Northern Indian. I recommend trying to find some!

Facts are facts ¯_(ツ)_/¯

The Secretary of State is the ‘outside’ representative of the US. It heads the diplomatic arm of the state and is an architect of their authority globally. The role holds considerable sway over their military and quasi-military positioning. Next to that she was also a senator and on the ‘armed forces committee’ before that role. She supported the “Afghanistan surge” of the military, and NATO in Libya in 2011. She is recognised as being a war hawk which means favoring military intervention. She is a warlord but not in the “beret and uniform” kind.

Clinton was Secretary of State?

Based.